I have tried and tried across the many past months and failed. It seems my only ability left is to see, grasp and visualize ideas but when it comes to bringing them into reality I keep failing miserably.
I don't need money, fame or anything else for that matter. I am a complete nobody and a failure of a human being. I can find ways to survive or go beg on the streets if the need arises. But please help me build this so it can be spread to families in need. Families who have been broken by wars or stuck in perpetual socio-economical struggles. But most importantly so it can help the innocent children that have been forsaken by their parents, the orphaned souls. It is heart and soul crushing to know you can do something to help but not to act, I am disgusted by myself for taking this long.
I will use this thread to explain the technical side of this very simple idea and please let me borrow your skills to help me build 3d printable prototypes that can spread everywhere so we can finally stop this senseless cycle of suffering.
Please I beg you all to help me.
Wwe are here.
I just had to remove my previous post, the thing about moving too fast is that you can make mistakes. Its embarrassing to face plant in front of everyone but its fine I am used to the feeling. Plus my new friction erasable pen taught me its okay to make moronic mistakes, just rub the ink off with friction and rewrite.
So here goes, the second attempt.
The crucial part is the size of the small child gear in the middle. The smaller it is the more "efficient" the generator becomes as the "back-torque" depends on its radius and goes to zero as the radius of the child gear goes to radius.
I call this the SHIELD V1 due to its circular dominant design. I will next work on 3d renditions of it to make the design more graspable. I highly recommend to use magnets and coils. As using physical rubbing friction only would create heat and dust, especially the last we already have poisoned our children enough with. So coils and magnets are the way to go.
This is not the "perfect" design I wished for as it does not self accelerate yet. It only eliminates most of the back-torque associated with typical generators which makes it "overunity" but I don't want to waste time on critics and "math" to prove this so I will keep sharing improvements, time is precious and any step towards the right direction helps.
I don't care whether people see an "electron", "proton" and "neutron" in this. I will stick to what I see, family and its children.
For the mathematical rigorous people, here is your challenge and equations.
The claim is as the radius "d" of the "child" gear goes to 0 the forward and backward torque cancel each other fully, hence "1", in other words it takes no effort/energy to keep the setup spinning while its producing massive amounts of heat/sound (if the gears were rubbing), electricity (if coils and magnets are used)... aka "free" energy.
Of course there is limits to how small the child gear can be but the torque ratio can still be easily be in the 95 percentile range which gives plenty of "overunity" to heat your butt up in the cold winter.
So any "builders" willing to take up the challenge to see whether this lunatic is sharing something worthwhile or complete garbage?
Next I will try to share 3d designs to aid in visualization.
You guys like animations?
Good work.
Quick question though.
Is this an overbalanced wheel, a torque amplifier, or does one wheel needs to be driven mechanically.
I can print it for sure but right now I am still wonder what I am looking at.
Kind regards,
Steven
This video should help:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/QH37FHTX78#3cK3YEVg10Vt
The magnets and coils interact to induce a voltage/current. This is the "negative friction" part. But again, keep the central immovable gear small and there will be little to no back-torque as you spin the system and it produces energy through the coils. There are endless variations more coming soon.
QuoteI can print it for sure but right now I am still wonder what I am looking at.
If I was arrogant I would say you are looking at the fundamental structure of an atom. The proton (red gear), the electron (blue gear) and the neutron (central gear). A structure that barely takes any energy to keep going forever. But I wouldn't dare to make such a bold claim even in my wildest dreams.
I would like to see this truly built right.
I had a very similar idea and started some prototypes, but then got distracted and never saw it through yet.. It was a planetary gear setup, but with the extra gear so the planets rotate opposite direction of the main carrier's rotation, but the planets rotate 2 times as fast. I'll spare ya my theories, but I still think there is possibilities with such a setup.
This is where I left off.
I had seen that at ten years ago yet. One russian old man. He also asked for help. I don't know how he is now.
Ok at this moment can't say I am fully committed to build a coiled version but since it is hard to wrap ones mind around what is really happening in these kinds of designs I want to 'feel' the forces. So this is where I am at right now, printed them gears.
Attached the Autodesk Fusion file now to play with it on your own. This is modeled just as a demonstration, but you can use it as a starting point.
Quote from: nali2001 on 2024.09.14, 17:28:34
Ok at this moment can't say I am fully committed to build a coiled version but since it is hard to wrap ones mind around what is really happening in these kinds of designs I want to 'feel' the forces. So this is where I am at right now, printed them gears.
Your "child" gear is too big, try to reduce this gear as much as is technically possible or perhaps even use a small metal gear instead with few teeth. It does not need to match the other small gear of the "mother" gear.
This smaller the size of the stationary "child" gear the less back torque you will "feel". If it goes to 0, which of course is not possible engineering wise, there will be 0 back-torque while generating power. In the next post I will post a desmos graph to get a better grasp on efficiency.
Added a desmos graph too to play with different radius sizes to see how much "back torque" would be eliminated.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ug5cijicfk
Short overview:
- Red line represents the unity line as a reference
- father gear radius: 100mm
- Mother gear radius: 50mm (not counting the skirt which should match the rime of the father gear)
- Child gear radius: 10mm
As you see at 10mm the ratio between the backward and forward torque is 83% meaning only 17% will be felt as resistance. And as you bring the slider down of x (the child gear radius) the ratio tends to 1 aka no resistance at all making the COP go to "infinity".
You can use this to play with different ratios to try and get as close to unity as possible with reasonable dimensions.
Sorry broli, but I have been following this thread from the beginning and I still don't understand your design. Where are you applying the input torque and where is the output?
Respectfully,
Carroll
You sure the desmos graph page is working properly (never heard of this or used it)? Below is what I am seeing when I open it:
Quote from: broli on 2024.09.14, 19:42:01
Added a desmos graph too to play with different radius sizes to see how much "back torque" would be eliminated.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ug5cijicfk
Short overview:
- Red line represents the unity line as a reference
- father gear radius: 100mm
- Mother gear radius: 50mm (not counting the skirt which should match the rime of the father gear)
- Child gear radius: 10mm
As you see at 10mm the ratio between the backward and forward torque is 83% meaning only 17% will be felt as resistance. And as you bring the slider down of x (the child gear radius) the ratio tends to 1 aka no resistance at all making the COP go to "infinity".
You can use this to play with different ratios to try and get as close to unity as possible with reasonable dimensions.
Quote from: nali2001 on 2024.09.14, 20:30:58
You sure the desmos graph page is working properly (never heard of this or used it)? Below is what I am seeing when I open it:
Should be fixed now.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.09.14, 20:19:40
Sorry broli, but I have been following this thread from the beginning and I still don't understand your design. Where are you applying the input torque and where is the output?
Respectfully,
Carroll
The output is pure electricity from the coils attached to the "father" gear (so you need a commutator to extract it). The input comes from an external motor (not depicted) or mister finger keeping the setup spinning with little to no effort.
Hi Broli:
I am having a bit of a time figureing out the hard mounting point for this. Could you sketch what part the framework would attach to.
thay
Quote from: Thaelin on 2024.09.14, 22:05:14
Hi Broli:
I am having a bit of a time figureing out the hard mounting point for this. Could you sketch what part the framework would attach to.
thay
You are right. The design right now is a bit confusing as the child gear needs to be stationary while things around it rotate, it is fixed in space which is not really feasible engineering wise. But I added an animation of where the "input" motor would be that could potentially help. But it still doesn't take away the mysteriously floating fixed child gear:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/V8W6C2WW20#89E9Q38suiYG
I am still working on a different design that needs no motor or even coils for that matter.
However I do have a small rant on 3d CAD software of today. These things seem to be stuck in 2010. By far most of the time I spent (and waisted) was battling CAD software, Fusion or Solidworks alike. Especially when it comes to gears, once you lock in a gear design good luck changing anything design wise, you might as well just start over from scratch every time. This is annoying as heck so much so that I often just threw everything away out of frustration and left things behind all together costing precious time. This kind of things need to improve, especially when it comes to dynamic and parametric design of components. I have a feeling in the future many more will build upon this and this is not the most efficient way to do it. Here is an example of trying to resize the mother gear that messes everything up and where I might just as well start from scratch:
(https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/p7bwcme6d57.png)
So Autodesk and Solidworks if you are reading this in the future, please listen to feedback and improve your sh*t or better alternatives will leave you behind. Software should be as frictionless as possible in order to translate imagination into reality.
I started using Shapr3D (https://www.shapr3d.com) for my 3D modelling. It's intuitive with a modern user interface and easy to create the things you mentioned. It hides most of the complexity away from you. It also has apps for Windows, macOS & iPadOS. Designing on an iPad with an Apple pencil or equivalent is probably the best experience.
On their website they talk about 'Parametric and direct modeling', which is something you mentioned.
The only downside is that it's a subscription service, but they have a free basic plan as well. The free plan is a bit limited, but at least you can try it out and see if it would be a better fit for your 3D modelling needs. Time is money, so I'm happy to pay for something that's going to save me a significant amount of time.
You should also look at FreeCad. It has versions for Linux, Windows and Mac. It is entirely free with support from a large community of users. The best feature is that it has several "work benches" which are actually different ways of doing modeling. It also has many add-ons like a special gear feature that makes it very easy to create any kind of gear. I have been using it for the last few years since I switched to Linux.
Carroll
so does the r-Mother gear needs to be bigger then the child gear? in some images/animations it is as big as the child gear in others it is way bigger.
These are the sizes we go for?
father gear radius: 100mm
Mother gear radius: 50mm
Child gear radius: 10mm
10mm is super small though. You can's print that since more or less only one teeth will be engaged. Any force and it will break right away. But will look into a steel one.
Quote from: nali2001 on 2024.09.15, 12:17:05
so does the r-Mother gear needs to be bigger then the child gear? in some images/animations it is as big as the child gear in others it is way bigger.
These are the sizes we go for?
father gear radius: 100mm
Mother gear radius: 50mm
Child gear radius: 10mm
10mm is super small though. You can's print that since more or less only one teeth will be engaged. Any force and it will break right away. But will look into a steel one.
I asked my friend to simplify the equation. Looks like the father gear radius is irrelevant.
updated link:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uwq60albz2
Where the purple graph crosses the vertical graph (which indicates the size of the child gear) that point is how close to the system is to "unity" if the child gear disappears into the nothingness that is a singularity.
Hi all,
Food for thought. Interesting geometry and torque manipulation here:
https://newatlas.com/technology/abenics-versatile-active-ball-joint-gear/
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.09.24, 02:19:35
Hi all,
Food for thought. Interesting geometry and torque manipulation here:
https://newatlas.com/technology/abenics-versatile-active-ball-joint-gear/
bi
Very clever, probably full of future uses in robotics
But Newton's third law, the reaction occurs immediately, without any time delay?
And what about action-reaction, caus-effect, as the Merovingian said in the matrix? After all, the force that initially caused the reaction was the force that began to pull the load. At the speed of light, or faster?
what about Newton first law ? I bet it is also important O0
Quote from: forest on 2024.10.20, 18:17:55
what about Newton first law ? I bet it is also important O0
Yes,and I think Lenz's law too.
So why is there no time gap between cause and effect ?
How then to distinguish them, where is the cause, where is the effect?
Or is there a gap?
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This tendency to resist changes in a state of motion is inertia."
but what it means if opposite is true ? what if all forces acting on object is balanced ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.10.21, 06:32:12
Yes,and I think Lenz's law too.
So why is there no time gap between cause and effect ?
How then to distinguish them, where is the cause, where is the effect?
Or is there a gap?
You make a good point. What if newtons third law was not 'instantaneous'. In rigid bodies for example, we know it depends on the speed of sound through said material.
Perhaps the exploit to overunity is time dilation? Which is really a phase shift. Light entering a medium also undergoes a phase shift which gives it the illusion of 'slowing' down but really it's the material itself which is stretching and bending in a delayed matter because of its 'stiffness'. The stiffer the material the smaller the delay, hence why EM waves move much faster in metal lattices than in water. Or to put it more correctly, the wave energy is delayed much less in harder than in softer materials. And to break it down even more simply, this is because the wave that has a linear velocity suddenly gains a side ways velocity too because of how it bends the material, this side way velocity due to the interaction with the material is what gives rise to a 'delay' in the linear velocity or rather energy/momentum.
The question is what materials exhibit the most 'time' dilation if you want to build a more static or rigid demonstration. Well they should be 'soft' materials materials where the wave of energy (sound/EM/...) is 'delayed'. Rubber? Iron? Water? Anything with a hysteresis should be a good candidate as this can be seen as the materials 'time' delay factor. After which you start the injection of wave energy by 'hammering' the material which will ripple through the material with a certain speed but due to the time delay or phase shift the 'reaction' forces arrive and are balanced but in time they are 'unbalanced'. This creates a slight momentum advantage and the system appears to 'violate' newtons third law but it is only an illusion of a phase shift of the energy wave. The hammering can also be harmonic and voila you get resonance plus a continuous delayed reaction/'lenz' force and produce your 'anomalous' energy. Or as some perhaps would call it, a time machine that can extract energy lol. Pretty sure Tesla knew this but his scale and scope was too grandiose for his time. Key is to show this on a small scale before you go big.
So really, it's all about time or the illusion of it that occurs when you have multiple 'dimensions' rubbing against each other producing a energy/shock waves which produce a phase difference in said dimension with 'time' in between as a result. Newtons third law is a cardinal rule but it is not 'instant' and you must take into account the phase difference of the energy wave in all kinds of mediums/materials regardless where this energy wave came from. This is what causes the 'quantization' of momentum but really its just a travelling bundle of energy that is stretching and twisting in a corpuscular material made out of 'discrete' crystals which quantum physicists like to call the particle/wave duality. But hey everyone can have their fancy names right. But there is no end to it, it repeats on every level of this so called 'reality' perhaps even across the multiverse. There might be no height limit but there is an absolute bottom, the 0 Kelvin point. The immovable point, the 'super' singularity. That is the 'exploit' of the system, that is the only way one can 'produce' energy based on the 'illusion' of traveling and delaying energy waves to generate 'anomalous' unbalanced momentum in said 'crystals'.
So Dark Energy = phase shift of two massive crystals 'rubbing' against each other exchanging and releasing energy waves as a result? Who knows but if so, what kind of structure would it be, are there more like it, who or what put them there? Who knows and who cares really. It seems to repeat on every scale and there is seemingly infinite space to grow in. Perhaps we can stop the stupid fighting and wars, realize we are one big family, warm our cold butts and family homes with this 'anomalous' fire and enjoy the beautiful scenery outside that keeps restoring itself and evolving without our intervention in the form of trees, eco systems and life itself. I would like to see any Scientist, Prophet, Leader or 'God' explain the mechanism behind that to me. A mechanism that keeps making every generation more gentle, more harmonious, more empathic, more loving. All seemingly on its own. How do you imbued such an insanely complex system with love at such a low level and be self correcting and guiding at the same time? Sounds like God likes to build simple binary systems, with built-in error correction using a very simple software language: Love.
A simple system that repeats forever like a fractal and automatically evolves becoming more and more complex and which keeps self correcting towards one goal; 'Perfect' love. Whatever that might mean on the small and large scale. How would the universe look like when everyone strived to find the meaning of 'perfect' love? How would just our world look like if we all had one meaning in life, to work towards perfect love on every scale of time, dimensions and evolution. That is at least something I find personally worth working for, betting on and believing in.
Search:
http://rexresearch.com/pages-g/pages.htm (http://rexresearch.com/pages-g/pages.htm)
Natron theory.
Quote from: broli on 2024.10.31, 07:59:42
You make a good point. What if newtons third law was not 'instantaneous'. In rigid bodies for example, we know it depends on the speed of sound through said material
...
That's the case with everything. Nothing is instantaneous. When you push a rigid object of length L, as you say, the other end doesn't move until a time of the order of magnitude of the propagation of sound in the material of the object.
But whatever phenomenon you're dealing with, the effect at distance L will never appear before a time less than L/c after the cause.
All physicists know this, and in no way does it call into question the laws of physics. In classical physics, cause-and-effect relationships are always established from one step to the next. When we consider a "rigid" object, this is only an approximation, valid only if the infinitesimal time between the moment when we push and the moment when the effect is felt at the other end, is negligible. If it isn't, then we need to take into account the propagation of the tiny deformation of the object from the part where it is compressed, to the other end. The same applies to the effect of a magnetic field. The primary coil must generate the magnetic field first, before the effect of current consumption by the secondary generates an opposing effect. Does this delay call into question Lenz's Law, which is merely an engineering rule? Of course not. Because energy is needed to build up the magnetic field before the secondary reacts. When the field variation has been transmitted across space at speed c to the secondary, then the current in the secondary generates an opposite field. The field is the mediator, and its propagation requires a delay like the tiny deformation of the rigid body. Lenz's law is an approximation of the macroscopic result when the primary and secondary are so close together that the propagation delay can be neglected AS IF cause and effect were instantaneous, which they never are.
The only exception to these always-near effects is quantum mechanics, with its instantaneous quantum entanglement. But in this case, there's no proof that anything has been transmitted from one entangled particle to the other - the no-communication theorem would suggest the opposite.
Does the magnetic field propagates through the ferrite rod between the two coils, primary and secondary, at the speed of light ? And at what speed does this field propagate from the primary coil deep into the center of the ferrite rod ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.11.13, 14:04:47
Does the magnetic field propagates through the ferrite rod between the two coils, primary and secondary, at the speed of light ? And at what speed does this field propagate from the primary coil deep into the center of the ferrite rod ?
First of all, you should never think of a ferrite rod as a pipe through which a magnetic field moves.
The correct image is that of loops of field lines extending around the source (the conductors of the primary) as the field increases. Ferrite certainly helps these lines to pass through and concentrates them, but they always remain looped. The propagation velocity of an electromagnetic wave in a material is v=1/√(ε.µ ) where ε and µ are the permittivity and permeability of the material respectively.
As the field lines always loop partly outside the ferrite (except in the special case of a constant field in a torus), I assume that the velocity will be faster than 1/√(ε.µ ) but still slower than 1/√(ε0.µ0 ).
i.e. if we take ferromagnetic rod of length 300000 km.with the primary and secondary coil on its tips,we would have one second to off Back EMF coming from secondary coil ? :)
I've simply known one document which states that the diffusion of magnetic induction into the depths of the material has a speed that is orders of magnitude less than the speed of light.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.11.14, 09:56:32
i.e. if we take ferromagnetic rod of length 300000 km.with the primary and secondary coil on its tips,we would have one second to off Back EMF coming from secondary coil ? :)
Why do you want to apply Lenz's law to a case where it's not only useless, but also false, because the conditions for the approximation it supposes are absent. As mentioned above, Lenz's law only applies when propagation times are negligible, which is no longer the case here.
If the bar were 300,000 km long, the field lines would loop outside the ferrite for 300,000 km on the way back too, which would be a completely inefficient magnetic circuit, but let's assume that the field does pass through. In this case, it would be like a radio transmitter: the primary coil generates a field in the ferrite, so loses energy to build the field which propagates to the secondary coil, which can then consume this energy.
Quote
I've simply known one document which states that the diffusion of magnetic induction into the depths of the material has a speed that is orders of magnitude less than the speed of light.
This is exactly what I wrote above.
"The propagation velocity of an electromagnetic wave in a material is v=1/√(ε.µ)".
In vacuum or air, c =1/√(ε0.µ0). As in a material ε > ε0 and µ > µ0 then v < c.
Now remember, the rod is NOT a pipe, nor is the magnetic field a fluid. In the quasistationary approximation, i.e. the everyday approximation and Lenz's Law, the bar concentrates the already-looped field lines.
If we see it as a pipe, then this is the very different case of propagation in a medium where v=1/√(ε.µ) is the velocity of the electromagnetic wave. In this case, the magnetic field lines are no longer looped around the current source but have become autonomous. Both an electric and magnetic field propagate, but for them to propagate the diameter of the ferrite would have to be at least equal to half the wavelength. Even if at the same frequency, the wavelength is shorter than in a vacuum, due to greater permittivity and permeability, a ferrite rod with a diameter of several tens of m would be needed for a 100 KHz signal to propagate in this way. For 300,000Km, it would be a big investment :).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.11.16, 16:54:34
If the bar were 300,000 km long, the field lines would loop outside the ferrite for 300,000 km on the way back too, which would be a completely inefficient magnetic circuit,
Then let we take a torus with a diameter of 300,000 km which is divided by the number pi.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.11.16, 18:23:56
Then let we take a torus with a diameter of 300,000 km which is divided by the number pi.
This doesn't really change anything. Unless we use frequencies with wavelengths greater than 600,000 km, the ferrite torus will never contain a constant field over its entire volume at any given moment.
Either we're in the near-field, and the magnetic field is captive to the current that gives rise to it, and Lenz's law applies, or the dimensions of the system are greater than the wavelengths used, and we have electromagnetic wave propagation. Whether it's in a ferrite, a waveguide or in space, the principles of electromagnetic propagation have been known for ages.
The mistake is to reason with Lenz's law or the equations of a transformer, for a system to which they don't apply and where RF engineering must be used.